Should stealing be excused just because you're doing it to some wealthy entity?
The problem with the "it's OK to steal from them because they're in a position of privilege and I'm not" justification logic, is that then the poor/homeless guy around the block should also be ok to rob you or break into your car because "who cares, have you seen the fat wages those techies are raking in?"
Have Meta done a lot of nasty stuff that they should be punished for? Definitely. But that's another topic they need to be held accountable for by the law, and should never be a justification to green light stealing since two wrongs don't make a right and you don't want to live in a society where stealing is normalized as long as you think you're doing it to someone more priviledged than you.
Funny bit is no one ever seems to want to contemplate how to defang the power laws that yield winner takes all, fostering massive inequality at the expense of the majority of the population.
That'd make being rich harder though. No one wants that.
It is basically lying on an expense report.
They were given permission to use funds to dinner if they were working late. Instead they treated the program as a personal credit card.
Absolutely!
> The problem with the "it's OK to steal from them because they're in a position of privilege and I'm not" justification logic, is that then the poor/homeless guy around the block should also be ok to rob you or break into your car because "who cares, have you seen the fat wages those techies are raking in?"
False equivalence. But also, I'm absolutely ok with this.
> Have Meta done a lot of nasty stuff that they should be punished for? Definitely. But that's another topic they need to be held accountable for by the law, and should never be a justification to green light stealing since two wrongs don't make a right and you don't want to live in a society where stealing is normalized as long as you think you're doing it to someone more priviledged than you.
I'm completely fine with this world.
Hilariously, you could have made this argument a lot better by indicating perception of privilege is subjective. But you didn't—and instead only produced examples that should be ok to anyone with an ounce of morality.
Employers should not be exercising control over how compensation is used. Period.
The employees were stealing from the company coffee jar
That said, it's compensation employees accepted with conditions in its use, and to intentionally violate those conditions is not ethically supportable.
Work meals are not W-2 taxable compensation if they meet several conditions, such as being consumed outside normal working hours and on premises.
A gift card to buy food or whatever you want is w-2 taxable income. A meal voucher so people can eat while working late is not.
https://www.henssler.com/employer-provided-meals-are-they-ta...
So probably a perk they decided was worth it or necessary for morale at some point
Dayum, I could make a weeks worth of meals with the daily allowance of each of these.
They buy some startup, bring them all under Meta's HR umbrella with all the rules and perks that comes with. Since these recently acquired guys are running out of random offices in random places they just give them a stipend rather than force them to all relocate to a campus with dining.
The $400k employee was probably a higher up (or key SME Meta felt they needed to put in golden handcuffs) at one of these acquired companies and was probably already on his or her way out.
I always thought that stuff (along with the snacks) was a ploy to keep employees working longer hours. Needing to get food/coffee/whatever is a transition that can allow people to decide to disengage from work. A strategically placed coffee station can prevent a longer trip to the cafeteria or a coffee shop, and free food in the cafeteria can prevent a trip offsite to a restaurant or the worker's home for a meal. Plus it can seem like a plus to the employee, because people often pay a lot more attention to money than time.
I don't think it's that simple. Sure, on some level it's a win for you (free food) and a win for them (more time spent working), but on another level you might be winning more if the perk wasn't influencing your decision-making to take the employer-preferred path.
I think it's a little more clear when thinking about employer provided dinner, like Facebook apparently provides.
At some point it will disappear and go to a hard RTO, but for now it kind of works.
I've seen others ask how is buying toothpaste and wine is possible on a voucher, Doordash definitely does this "add groceries in the next 15 minutes!" thing once you've ordered lunch.
My impression is that's created a deeply rooted sense of need. That sense of need stays, even when you clearly have great salaries.
Doing that also gives you freedom in the sense that you are no longer "trapped" in whatever job you have, because you can develop a long enough runway that you can leave a job before you've found a replacement.
[1] In my youth, I dated the daughter of one of the richest people in my city. I asked him what the key to getting rich is, and his response was "spend less than you earn". At the time, I thought it was a way to to avoid answering my question, but in the decades since I've realized that was actually the correct answer and everything else is just expanding on that.
I'd wonder if that was part of the issue here, actually; are these sorts of meal vouchers treated specially for tax in the US?